Corporate Dems vs The Squad

Are you wondering why Democratic Party leaders have only sternly worded statements and tepid pleas for civility, while Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar and Ayanna Pressley, "The Squad", speak truth to power? Follow the money.

"The Squad" relies mostly on small donations, while "... 344 corporate-related PACs made 520 contributions to the six Democratic House leaders in the second quarter, totaling nearly $1.2 million."

As Ocasio-Cortez advocates for the Green New Deal, the top House Democrats rake in contributions from the PACs of fossil fuel companies such as Dominion Energy ($10,000), BP ($6,000), ExxonMobil ($2,500), and TransCanada ($1,000).

As the two sides battle it out for the party’s future, they are relying on their core constituencies to help them along: For “the Squad,” it’s the diverse groups of people who helped them win congressional seats for the first time in 2018. For the establishment, it’s the corporations that have sent lobbyists to their offices and checks to their campaigns for many years.

AOC says,“Are we headed to fascism? Yes, I don’t think there’s a question.”

Replies to This Discussion

When I was much younger, I saw Republicans as genuinely pursuing a vision (if wrongheaded in some details) of what's best for the United States. In recent years it's become clear to me that they're nothing more than oligarchical and corporatist stooges, serving an agenda no more principled than "I've got mine, screw you."

Moore suggests that Bernie Sanders has a better chance of beating Trump because he's "a street fighter" like Trump. Getting non-voting Democrats out to vote requires them to get excited. Biden isn't energizing.

"You're going up against a bully."

"You've got to have someone who inspires the base. The base, here, of the Democratic Party, are women, people of color, and young adults between 18-35. That's 70 percent of who's going to vote next year."

The problem is Independents are typically the swing voters and studies show them to be the least educated of the electorate. When people equate socialism with Bernie, they equate communism with Bernie, most don't really know the difference.

So while I agree with you the US needs to go more left, I don't think this is the time to do it, it just gives Trump more amo because the economy is doing well and people are afraid to change it up.

The Democrats seem to be screwing up royally again this cycle, they need to mention all the great things Obama did for the economy, but they focus instead on Trump's moral failings, which are typically secondary concerns to the electorate.

I think you are right, Tom. I find that in Trumpworld the ideas is to demonize the other party and often make it appear that your party is saying or doing what the other party is doing and saying. If something is wrong it must be the fault of that idiotic other party. Even in this forum when I said both parties are conflicted I was hit back with something that I am supposedly saying bad about the Dems. It wasn't what I said at all.

I am not watching the debates however. Ideas on how well Obama did in the past and things like it are not going to win an election. I demonize Trump enough myself but we should have a steady focus on the fact that we have no good reasons to accept bad behavior. What is happening is that we are being dumbed down daily to a point of acceptance.

Tom, when I note studies show Independents to be the least educated of the electorate, I'm talking about politically. I'm not saying there aren't good or intelligent people in that group. But these studies make sense, since in my experience Independents tend to vote based on the personalities of the politicians.

But really a much more important factor is party affiliation, which typically dictates how they politicians vote. And for me, climate change, social safety net and women's rights are the most important issues, and you generally won't find Republicans supporting those issues, or Democrats voting against those issues, unless a great portion of their base goes against their party affiliation.

Also, the difference between 49%-51% and 51%-49% party representation in a chamber of Congress or in most state legislatures isn't just a different likelihood of getting controversial bills passed. The party majority determines the agenda. It determines committee chairs and majorities; it determines which bills are heard and debated by the full chamber; it can even determine which bills even go to committee in the first place.

Yes, and the party majority is either conservative, as is generally the case with Republicans, or progressive, as is generally the case with Democrats. That's why it's important to vote in such a manner as to make that majority progressive, if one wants to see any real change.

I've given a lot of thought to your characterization of US politics, "... the party majority is either conservative, as is generally the case with Republicans, or progressive, as is generally the case with Democrats. That's why it's important to vote in such a manner as to make that majority progressive, if one wants to see any real change." As I see it, our values are similar, but I see you (along with 99% of the populace) as making sense of the world's pace differently than I do. Will explain further in a forum topic.

If conservatives favor a fiscally responsible small government, the 1970s GOP was the last conservative GOP.

Reagan invited the evangelicals to join and it became a religious and authoritarian big gov’t party.

In the mid-1980s it started borrowing the gov’t into bankruptcy and stopped being fiscally responsible.

As to a progressive Dem party, in years of fundraising letters, it let me check “conservative” or “liberal” on my reply. I scolded it for not letting me check “progressive” and finally stopped donating.